tv This Week With George Stephanopoulos ABC November 15, 2009 10:00am-11:00am EST
more troops for afghanistan. >> the united states cannot be engaged in an open-ended commitment. >> his attorney general prosecutes the plot's masterm d mastermind. >> in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. >> this is a big step in the wrong direction. topics this morning for our headliners. secretary of state hillary clinton and former new york mayor, rudy giuliani. hillary and rudy only on "this week." then -- >> we don't have to continue to go down this controversy road. >> she's back. george will, gwen ifill of pbs. david brooks of "the new york "mother jones." corn from and as always, the sunday funnies. >> before john mccain chose her as his running mate, his campaign spent $50,000 on a background check.
when he heard this, john mccain said we should have spent $75,000. and we begin today with the secretary of state hillary clinton. thanks for spending time with us this morning. >> it's a pleasure to talk with you from singapore, george. >> wel and as you're in singapore, you and the president are facing really his toughest decision yet on afghanistan. and on his way over when he stopped at the air force base, president obama made this commitment to the troops and the country. listen. >> we'll give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. we'll give you the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done and that includes public support back home. that is a promise that i make to you. >> now that is a tough promise to keep. history shows that the public won't support a war for very
long if they're not convinced that the goal is worthy. but also, probably more important that the war can be won, how can you convince the country that this war can be won? >> i think the president said it very well in talking to some of the brave young men and women when he stopped at the base. what he's been doing in the last weeks is testing every single assumption, asking for evidence, asking for dissenting opinions, he has conducted an extraordinary effort to make sure that the decision he makes is rooted in his best judgment. as to what is in the national security interests of the united states. and i believe that's a case that can be made to the american people. i have no doubt about that. now, look, i understand that there will be people who are maybe critical or unconvinced or not persuaded but i think the majority of americans will know
that this president has gone the extra mile. in fact, more than that, whatever decision he makes is in the best interest of our country. it is aimed at making our country more secure and supporting our men and women in uniform as they fulfill the mission. >> one of those dissenting voices right now is our ambassador in afghanistan, karl eikenberry and he had sent cables to washington warning that president karzai is not a worthy partner. and sending more troops to afghanistan could make it more difficult for afghan government, president karzai, the afghan army too what they need to do defend their country on their own. i know you can't comment on any classified cables. what do you think of this sentiment? sending more troops now will make the afghan army too dependent on u.s. forces. >> george, you're right.
i can't and wouldn't comment on the confidential advice that anyone has provided to the president during his deliberations. but the argument that you just described is one that a number of people have made in the press and in arguments that have certainly been made known to me to the president and others. we agreed that our goal here is to defeat al qaeda. that has been a clear goal. and a mission, from the president, ever since he made his commitment of additional troops back in the spring and we understand that the afghans themselves, need help in order to defend themselves against the taliban. those are mutually re-enforcing missions. but, our highest obligation is to the american people. it is to do everything we can to make sure that america is
secure. that our allies, our interests around the world, are protected. and that is what we're focused on. now, we believe that president karzai and his government can do better. we delivered that message, now that the election is finally over. we're looking to see tangible evidence that the government, led by the president, but going all of the way down to the local level, will be more responsive to the needs of people. will deliver the services that afghan people want. will not return to the taliban but a government that can function on their behalf. and together, we and our allies in the international community, will help them to build a security force that can take care of their security going forward. >> but president karzai does seem to be ignoring some of our concerns. he's surrounded by a vice president who's been accused of corruption.
he's aligned with a war lord who's been accused of massacres in the past. what kind of concrete steps must president karzai take in order of spending more troops isn't a waste of u.s. lives? >> i have made it clear, that we're not going to be providing any civilian aid to afghanistan unless we have a certification that if it goes into the afghan government in any form, that we're going to have ministries that we can hold accountable. we are expecting there to be a major crimes tribunal. an anticorruption commission established and functioning. there does have to be actions by the government of afghanistan against those who have taken advantage of the money that has poured into afghanistan in the last eight years, so that we can better track it and we can have actions taken that demonstrate there's no impunity for those who are corrupt.
so we're going to be doing what we can to create an atmosphere in which the, you know, the blood and treasure that the united states has committed to the afghanistan, can be justified and produced the kind of results that we're looking for. but we have no illusions, this is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the afghans build a modern democracy and build, you know, a more functioning state. and do all of these wonderful things. that could happen. but, our primary focus is on the security of the united states of america. how do we protect and defend against future attacks? we do not want to see afghanistan return to being a safe haven and a staging platform for terrorism as it was before. that is what's driving the president to make the best decision to make.
the word of week in washington seems to be offramps, what the president is pushing for, offramps out of afghanistan? >> we want to get al qaeda, george. we're very clear about that. we see that as part of our integrated strategy looking at afghanistan and pakistan as a theater in which we have to operate. we have made it clear to the pakistanis as well as to the afghans and others, we want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda. and when we talk about onramps, offramps, whatever the terminology of the day might be, you know, that's kind of a short hand, what we're trying to figure out is, what is the best decision the president can make to achieve our primary core objective? we're not interested in staying in afghanistan. we have no long-term stake there. we want that to be made very
clear. we came to do a mission, unfortunately, it wasn't achieved in the last eight years. in fact, the mission was changed because it couldn't be achieved, or no longer the primary goal expressed in the prior administration. our goal is very clear, we want to get the people who attacked us. we want to keep them from posing a threat to us, our interests and our allies. >> while you're there, the attorney general announced he was going to be prosecuting al qaeda members in u.s. courts. that's come under some fire, including from the former mayor of new york, rudy giuliani, here's what the mayor had to say about this decision. >> this was an act of war and act of terror. they should be prosecuted, they should be prosecuted in a military tribunal. we would not have tried the people who attacked pearl harbor in a civilian court in hawaii. for what ty did.
>> now, it is true during world war ii, we tried nazis who crossed our borders in military courts. why is so important to have these trials in federal criminal courts? >> well, of course, george, this is a decision that the attorney general, the department of justice and the department of defense have made after extensive, exhaustive review, look, i was a senator for eight years, i was a senator on 9/11. my goal is, to make sure that the mastermind and the other implementers and designers of this horrific attack on us pay the ultimate penalty for what they did to the united states and to a lot of people who i know and who i had the honor of representing. the attorney general's determined, after consulting with veteran prosecutors, that this is a case that
appropriately can be brought in our federal courts, other cases will be brought in the military commissions. i'm not going to second-guess the attorney general. >> the state department has the job of finding homes for the 90 or so prisoners of guantanamo cleared for release, but no one will take, how long it will take? >> george, we have been making progress. i think, when we started, way more than 100, i don't remember the exact number, we have a dedicated group, led by ambassador dan freed, who traveled the world, making arrangements for detainees being transferred to countries willing to accept them. and we are making progress. there's a large group of detainees from yemen who pose specific security issues that have to be addressed.
but with are making progress. >> while you've been gone, sarah palin has made a splash. there are excerpts out. and she has some kind words for you in the book. she says, she was wrong to criticize you last year. for whining and now, she says that she realized the media was biased talking about your candidacy and she goes on to say this, should secretary clinton and i ever sit over a cup of coffee, i know that we will fundamentally disagree on many issues. my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail. a lot of her supporters think she provide what margaret thatcher proclaimed. it sounds like she's fishing for a coffee date, is it going to happen? >> well, i have never met her. and, look, i would look forward to sit down and talk with her. obviously, we're going to hear a lot more from her in the upcoming weeks with her book coming out. and i would look forward to
having a chance to actually get to meet her. >> was the media fair to her? >> well, you know, george, i'll leave that for my book, if i ever write another one. >> okay, i have one final question, as you know mayor giuliani is following you in just a minute. he's been talking about running for governor for next year. and a lot of governors think you're doing the same thing. are you right? >> talking about running for governor yourself next year. >> no. that's another story that never will die and i hope we can put it to rest today. no, i am committed to the job that iave. it's an extraordinarily important time to be secretary of state of my country and to work with president obama in trying to pursue our interests and advance our values around
the world. >> so, that rumor's dead. you're not running? >> that rumor is dead. and if you can please in a little box and send it off somewhere, i would appreciate it. >> it's done. thank you for your time. >> thanks, george. with that, let me bring in the former mayor of new york city, rudy giuliani. welcome back, mr. mayor. >> nice to be back, george. >> let's start with the politics. hillary is out for governor in 2010, is rudy in? >> i don't know about that. >> what about you? you said a couple of months ago, that you would make a decision in november, polls show you as the leading republican candidate and it's also shaping up to be quite a republican year in 2010, how hard are you looking at it? and will you run? >> i'll take it in consideration and decide pretty soon. i haven't focused on it yet. but i will very soon.
>> are you leaning for or against? >> am i leaning for or against? i'm not leaning at all. right, straight ahead. >> then, let's go to the news of the week. on khalid sheikh mohammed. you w secretary clinton right there. what i want to ask you, comments you made back in 2006, when the 20th hijacker was convicted in federal criminal court. you were disappointed that he didn't get the death penalty. but you did praise the overall trial. here's what you said -- you called it a symbol of justice then. if criminal court was good enough for moussouai why isn't good enough for khalid sheikh mohammed? >> the are reality is, there's another alternative. military tribunals.
they're going to try five other people at least in those military tribunals. i don't understand why they can't try khalid sheikh mohammed in the military tribunal. that's the way we have tried enemy combatants in the past. whether it was the second world war or the civil war. so, we're basically, in this particular case, we're reaching out to give terrorists a benefit that's unnecessary. in fact, when mohammed was first arrested, asked to be brought to new york. i didn't think we were in the business of granting the requests of terrorists. >> thus the argument that the attorney general makes. if you look at the history here, you got more than 2000 international terrorists in federal prisons right now. we have demonstrated that our federal system can handle this and we can put these people away if necessary. >> but we also demonstrated that our federal system has a
enormously protracted process that's going to go on forever. that it grants more benefits than a military tribunal grants. there's always the possibility of acquittal, change of venue and the reality is, george, it creates an extra risk that's not necessary. it creates an extra risk for new york. new york can handle it, no question about it. why add an additional risk when you don't have to do that. and then i'm troubled by the symbolism by it also. it seems to me that the obama administration is gettg away from the fact that we're at war with these terrorists. they no longer use the term war on terror. they have been slow to react with the whole situation by major hasan that was clearly an terrorist attack. he announced it as such as he was doing it. he was carrying around business cards with "soldier of islam."
so, it would seem to me this is the worse symbol to send. this is a civilian matter. the same stance in '93. we didn't have the example of 9/11. many people think that was a mistake. >> let me press you on that, do you believe that major hasan should be tried in a military tribunal. >> i don't know about at. i would like to see the facts developed. the administration has been very slow to come to the conclusion that major hasan was an islamic extremist terrorist. i mean the reality is, he announced "allah akbar" when he shot and killed those people. he was communicating with a cleric who was encouraging terrorism. i suspect that -- i suspect that major hasan, will be tried in a court-martial. i suspect. but he could be tried either way. but these are acts of war. we're dealing with this "going rogue" book tour of sarah
palin. "newsweek." she made the cover of "newsweek." it says, how do you solve a problem like sarah? she's bad news for the gop and for everybody else, too. what is your answer to that question? >> first of all, being on the cover of newsweek is good for gop. there's attention to our party. she's an exciting figure in the republican party. she's someone who draws an enormous amount offing attention. i took her to yankee stadium this summer. democratic territory. 7 to 1 democratic territory in the bronx. she got a great reception. there's something extra special that sarah palin has in terms of reaching out to people and my party needs that kind of excitement. >> so you don't believe that she's going to push moderates out of the party? >> moderates shouldn't get pushed out of the party. sarah can push for the positions that she can. other peop can push for the
positions they have. that's the kind of competition we want. and we want the attention on the republican party. she raises money. she supports candidates. i don't agree with everything but she doesn't agree with everything i say. >> almost two-thirds of the public doesn't think she's qualified to be president. do you? >> well, i think that's going to be develop. she has two, three years to develop a case, if she wants to make a case for running for president. >> okay, mayor, thank you very much for your time. roundtable weighs in on terror trials and the going rogue book tour, the fallout for palin and the gop. we'll have that one when we come back. however you picture your retirement, pacific life can help... using 401k savings, life insurance, and annuities
here's the big question, do you ever want to be president? >> starting tuesday. >> would you like to see your mother as president. >> that would be cool. >> sarahalin the most outspoken you ever see her. >> do you know that bristol was sexually active? >> no. >> the barbara walters interview. >> truthfully, we were devastated. >> finish this sentence for me, sarah is -- >> that would be cool. we'll be right back with the
you know, a whack job, a narcissist. why do you think these people were trying to destroy your reputation? >> for some people, this is a business. and if failure in this business was going to reflect poorly on them, they had to pack their own parachutes and protect themselves and their reputations. so, they wouldn't be blamed. i'll take the blame. at the end of the day, i know what the truth is. >> barbara walters and sarah palin, it begins tuesday on "good morning america." we'll talk about it here in just a bit. let me bring in my roundtable. i'm joined by george will, david broo of "the new york times," bob woodward of the washington post, david corn of "mother jones," and gwen ifill of pbs. we'll get to palin in a little bit. let's begin with the debate that we just saw with secretary clinton and mayor giuliani. mayor said the administration made the wrong choice.
they should have tried khalid sheikh mohammed. in a military tribunal. >> three choices, put them in civilian courts, go to the military tribunal or just do noing and have indefinite detention. most people are uncomfortable with the third. only 6 of the 241 people were in guantanamo when barack obama became president have been sent to federal courts. enveloped with american rights. this is what bothers a lot of people. this is turning us into a law enforcement, not a war problem. it is both, actually, and the fbi has been busy this year. and we have been reading about it. so, it seems to me, i don't think they made a bad choice. >> and there have been convictions. >> lots of convictions. close to 200 terrorists who are already in supermaximum prisons in the united states. george w. bush said we will capture these people and bring them to justice. bringing to justice is somethi
of an obligation, and that is not easy to do. the attorney general is going to be asking for the death penalty for ksm. if that's the case, we have a tremendous obligation to show the rest of the world that we'll do this in an open, accountable way if we're going to give them maximum penalty. you have mayor bloomberg and police commissioner ray kelly in new york supporting this, too. >> david, the death penalty could give him exactly what he wants. martyrdom. he'll have the ability to get up there and make his case to the world. >> what is terrorism? terrorism is an act of propaganda. so now he gets to commit the original act of propaganda, what is the attack. now he'll have a long trial. international reality show. followed here but also around the world. i think the second mistake is identifying this as a crime and not as an act of war. to me, 9/11 is a national
security issue. it has been redefined by the administration as a crime. as a result, eric holder did not consult barack obama, did not consult the people who are responsible for the country's national security. to me, he's about to conduct a long, circuslike trial that will have national security ramifications. >> not necessarily. first of all, ksm has made it clear that he wants to plea guilty. if he pleas guilty, there's no trial. first of all, you could five trials, not just one, they would separate out the defendants in the case of ksm, as they call him, he's implicated himself in the murder of niel pearl, "the wall street journal" reporter. so, if they tried, you include that in a trial. do you not. these people, the questions of competency, involving a couple of these people. are they going to be their own lawyer?
>> they will be appointed some lawyers. exactly right. there are other complications as well. he was waterboarded 183 times. now the attorney general says he has evidence that's untainted. >> well, there are a lot of good question marks. what's the evidence that he says he has is untainted? not just because he has already confessed by the way at guantanamo, this hand killed danny pearl, he's confessed to a lot of this. we don't know if there's going to be a trial at all. and we have to keep in mind, if this does go to the new york district, they tried terrorism cases before, 90% of the cases found guilty. in this could go on for years and years. it's a real possibility to consider, it won't go on at all and that the administration would not and the justice department would not be taking it this far unless they have something we haven't seen. i don't know.
>> his character has been front-page stories in the washington post, describing his narcissis the personality, who wants a big show. long memos expressing himself. >> why would he pass up the chance? >> moussouai gave gives speeches. he was his own attorney and then he was not his own attorney. i don't know why their considerations should come into our considerations. we should make the decision that's right and best. but at the end of the day, it's about our values, not about his values. >> much is going to be depend on the caliber of the judge in this case. in the case of the chicago in 1968, judge hoffman got out of control. much depends on the caliber of the judge and maintaining order. bob, this guy wasn't just
implicated in the execution danny pearl, he said, i cut his head off with my blessed hand. he's given a lot information that's postwaterboarding. >> it could be very important by saying, look, we let the narcissistic personalities get justice in the country. i think there's a good chance he'll get justice and let's not be concerned that he's going to exploit it for his purposes, people on trial, are entitled to do that. >> it's not like the option is no trial. we have another set of procedures. these procedures tend to be reserved for people captured in acts of war on foreign soil. >> and i think the administration is hoping that this send a message that we're not afraid of this. it could, though, lead to the worst possible outcome. he gets off on a technicality,
but he can't be released. >> there are some other charges pending on him, too. if he happens to get off the 9/11 charge, there's the danny pearl charge, they have a string of cases lined up for him. don't have to worry about him being released. >> also questions of what the charges are. said, indicated, seek the death penalty when we don't know the charges yet. >> president obama still deliberating over afghanistan. it looks like it's going to take a couple of more weeks. he sent back all of the options for revisions. colin said that's fine. >> so mr. president, don't get pushed by the left to do nothing. don't get pushed by the right to do everything. you take your time and you figure it out. you're the commander in chief and this is what you were elected for. >> bob, let me bring this to you, after that last meeting on wednesday, the administration officials coming out, we get
ambassador general eikenberry memo, he's raising questions. i'm wondering to what extent do you think this theater or a truly torture decisionmaking process. >> there's a third alternative, it may be a smart decisionmaking process, that i'm doing full disclosure, a book on this, on how obama decides and governs. and i'm looking at this and other decisis, but you look at this decision and i just, last night, listed 32 issues that he and others in those deliberations have said, let's get on the table, let's figure out what we're going to do, where it's going, what are the facts, just to take two -- pakistan, everyone agrees that pakistan is the real problem, that's where al qaeda is, general mcchrystal, who's the afghan general has no authority
in pakistan, so, we're conducting, this well-known covert operation in afghanistan, attacking al qaeda camps and leaders with drones. >> and the first trip that general jones, the national security adviser, made right after the meeting was to go to pakistan. >> we are spending, the united states in, in afghanistan, a sum of money larger than the afghanistan's gdp, so we're already making a big effort there. congressman of wisconsin says this will swallow the president's priorities and budgets if he escalates there. >> $1 million per soldier. >> per year. congressman murtha said, chairman of a defense subcommittee, says, he now thinks a majority of house democrats would vote against funding a war. can the president go to war with a majority of his party against him? >> by emphasizing these offramps
sending a signal to those democrats he's taking their concerns seriously. >> the leak that came out of the eikenberry cables -- up until now the debate had been was good for the public in terms of the discourse. because, up until now the debate had been how many tens of thousands of troops obama was going to send. but what ikenberry said, can we do anything in this country if we have a government there that's corrupt and hapless, is it a waste of resources? it gave obama a lot more political and policy cover. for not getting stuck in that box. >> secretary clinton came down pretty hard on president karzai today. >> secretary clinton said, we want to keep in primary core objectives. and what she was saying was president karzai told my colleague in kabul this week.
which is, this isn't about you. we would like for your government to be so corrupt. this is about protecting us. and when margaret talked to hamid karzai, he said you're not here because of us, but for your own problems at home. >> but general mcchrystal has said that our mission, and i quote, to provide for the needs of the population of afghanistan, by, with and through the afghan government. and we have an afghan government presides over the population of kabul so poor, that don't have electricity or running water. those are big needs. >> i think it would be a male atrocity if we let and taliban took over parts of the country. i think it would destabili pakistan if we did that. nonetheless, when i look at the white house, what i see and hear in the president's voice, is a
couple of things, tremendous ambivalence about this. as if we can't afford this. i don't think you can go to war if this is one of your priorities you don't think you can afford. i don't think you should go to the war if you're just looking to get out. we went through the donald rumsfeld era. if you go to war, if the president believes there's no reason to believe that -- i think probably we shouldn't do. >> obama isn't going to war. he has this problem. that's the problem for six, seven, eight years, the sh/cheney administration addressed none of these issues. so he's stuck with no good choices. you can't start it over again. >> but, here's the question. asking for the facts and analysis is not necessarily ambivalence. at's what you do when you're sort a very complicated set of issues out.
look, take another one, the police in afghanistan. now, when you drill down on the police in afghanista you talk about corruption at the high level in afghanistan, at the police level, it's automatic. and when you look at the numbers about the police, in afghanistan, instead of going up, as general mcchrystal has projected and everybody hopes, it's going down because of the attrition. >> i have no problem with the process. i think deliberations are fine. this is about signals. what does joe villager in pakistan think? what do the pakistanis think? they know the taliban will be there forever. >> president karzai has put out a olive branch to the taliban. said he wants to work with them. >> but they don't know that about us. i think the mcchrystal memo was very clear on this. we have to change the momentum with a massive display of determination.
that determination simply doesn't exist in washington. >> general mcchrystal said, look, the insurgency in afghanistan, which he's in charge of trying to defeat or control, is directed, not from afghanistan, but pakistan, and he has no control in pakistan. so, there's a problem of what do you do in pakistan? and in these discussions, that is a big focus and rightly so. >> and they need the pakistani leadership to go after the taliban as fiercely. you talk about signals, david, as u.s. troops are going after the taliban in afghanistan. you talk about signals, david, signals back to the american public. it's clear that right now, that this public is not going to get behind a $200 billion, ten-year effort that doesn't have a high probability of success. >> george, we're hearing more and more this administration saying, by the way, any deal we're going to cut, there's going to be an exit out of this. >> an open-ended commitment. >> it's such a big job what they
set out to do. but then to say there's no open-ended commitment, it's a conflicting message. >> quickly, where does this end up? >> i think it ends up splitting the difference. a decision that will satisfy no one. it will send 20,000 at most. increase the combat strength of the u.s. >> we'll send the 20,000 or 30,000 but we'll radically scale back our plans there. >> i actually don't think the president knows. and i think that's what he's trying to sort out. and it's going to be -- i wonder, can he get good answers? like he'll ask, what's the intelligence on kandahar, big city in afghanistan? and it turns out, the answers are very unclear and so if you can get unclear answers you may get an unclear decision. >> you got two generals on the side of this.
mcchrystal, on o side and eikenberry, the former general, both know the issue and the area very well. i think the political tendency would be to what george said, come up the middle. come up with some muddle of answer. again, i have no idea of what the president's going to do. >> there was a great cartoon in the paper yesterday. it had the president with four easels. with four choices, bad, worse, horrible, disaster. that's where he is. >> he's trying to get a solution that can bring together the people around the table. >> i think this is tangled up with health care. that is, i think he's trying to kick this down the road until he gets this fundamental domestic achievement because his party is so heavily involved. >> let's talk about sarah palin right now. we shared a little bit of
barbara walters. here's sarah palin on oprah. >> that was seminal defining moment for you that interview. >> the campaign said, right on, good, you're showing your independence. this is what america needs to see. and it was a good interview. i'm thinking if you think that's a good interview, i don't know what a bad interview is. >> a little bit of bluntness from sarah palin there. the book is out. david brooks, it looks like it's a fair amount of score settling and the combat with mccain campaign aides. >> yeah, she's a joke. i can't take her seriously. we got serious problems in the country. barack obama is trying to handle a war. which, we had a guy elected of virginia bob, mcdonnell. the idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host. >> rudy giuliani taking her seriously this morning. >> well, rudy.
where do we go with this? i think he has no choice but to take her seriously. lamar alexander was quoted as saying this morning, as saying, she's interesting. she's the current, politics current example of the shining, something that we're into at this moment. you know what, shs interesting. >> she may represent a threat to the republican party. if she's -- >> in your dreams. >> no, i'm listening to david brooks here. she's a joke. it will reflect not so well on itself. there's a palin gap, some say they would like to see her a national figure. only 45% of all americans believe that. there's 31-point gap there. up to 71% of people polled believe she's qualified to be president.
the more seriously she's taken by rudy giuliani, it's not going to reflect good on their party. >> can she use this book tour to bring that number down? >> how big is the undecided element of sarah palin at this point? what are you working with here? if conservatives are looking for a populous, they have mike huckabee. who's mounting a big campaign, fall ahead of sarah palin at this early stage expressing a preference. some conservatives think they have found in sarah palin, a republican william jennings. why they would want somebodyho lost the presidency three times. >> you know, i think that she should have her say. i don't think anyone ever got elected based on a book. i agree with david on this. you talk to republicans, they said, they voted for obama because sarah palin was john
mccain's pick. that was john mccain's justification. and i ha heard it and i think you have heard it from republicans time and time again, so i don't think she will work in the republican party. but, you know -- she's going to give it a try. i think the book sales are going to be. >> of course, you can't underestimate the degree to which women will be drawn to her story. that's why she's appealing to hillary clinton. that's why -- when she made her own a announcement, she used the term glass ceiling back in the summer. don't underestimate that factor. >> you can be drawn to someone's story and buy their book and read their book. that doesn't mean you want them to be president. i think those are two different realms for people. >> david, take on david corn's question, taking away from her the personality, this whole palinism that we have seen. what impact does that have on
the party going forward? >> there's a populism in both the republican and democrat parties. whh is against wall street, washington, new york, against the coast. the poup lichl that's won in this country, it's not hostile and negative. it's the populism that ronald reaganesque. anger turns people off. representing small towns is fine. but what she does, turning into a hostility towards intellectual in general, doesn't work. >> the question is, whether americans want a rogue president? mitt romney has a book coming out in the spring. called "the case for american greatness." do we want -- but, you know, sarah palin is indeed promoting herself. and this idea that she's not a maverick, she's beyond maverick.
she's going for rogueness. i think that's not a settling sentiment for a lot of people in this country. may be good for talk shows to debate. she doesn't have the steady hand that people will want to see in a president any time in the near future. >> two years from now, we'll be up to our eyeballs in the iowa caucus. and i don't think that, at that point, when we have republican candidates, that she's going to loom large. this is what happens in a vacuum in a third year out. >> that's the last word for now. you guys continue this in the green room. you guys can see this on abcnews.com. coming up here the sunday funnies. time in history,t more people live in ties than anywhere else. which means cities have to get smarter. new york has smart crime fighting. paris has smart healthcare. smart traffic systems in brisbane keep traffic moving. galway has smart water. smart meters in dallas, houston...
and a smart grid in copenhagen keep energy flowing. smart ideas are happening... all over the world. i want to bring them all together in your city. a smarter paris. a smarter stuttgart. sao paulo. copenhagen. kyoto. a planet of smarter cities. that's what i'm working on. i'm an ibmer. let's build a smarter planet who can help put their retirement plan back on solid ground... protect their savings... and guarantee their income throughout retirement? as a leader in your company, who can you call to help get retirement right? who? pru. for solutions that redefine retirement, prudential is t rock you can rely on.
this week, the pentagon released the names of seven soldiers and marines killed in iraq and afghanistan. we'll be right back. (announcer) we call it the american renewal. because we believe in creating cleaner energy that creates new jobs. being the number one manufacturer of wind turbines in america. and developing lower emission, fuel-efficient aircraft engines. ecomagination means growing the green economy by harnessing our most powerful resource- imagination. the american renewal is happening. right now.
yeah. would you like a pony ? yeah ! ( cluck, cluck, cluck ) oh, wowww ! that's fun ! you didn't say i could have a real one. well, you didn't ask. even kids know when it's wrong to hold out on somebody. why don't banks ? we're ally, a new bank that alerts you when your money could be working harder and earning more. it's just the right thing to do. right now 1.2 million people are on sprint mobile broadband. 31 are streaming a sales conference from the road. 154 are tracking shipments on a train. 33 are iming on a ferry. and 1300 are secretly checking email on a vacation. that's happening now. america's most dependable 3g network. bringing you the first and only wireless 4g network. right now get a free 3g/4g device for your laptop. sprint. the now network. deaf, hard-of-hearing and people with speech disabilities access www.sprintrelay.com
the sunday funnies have a big welcome back for sarah palin. >> sarah palin's got a brand-new book and she's not coming to new york city to promote the book. not coming to new york city to promote the book. gosh, i hope it wasn't something i said. making a trip to china, obama plans to visit the forbidden city, the great wall and america's money. we have more to fear of that bill facing than we do from any terrorist. >> she's right. >> i say, if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. if not, you can choose the public option. oprah went all out to make sarah palin feel at home. >> oprah and former vice presidential candidate, sarah palin the world exclusive
interview. >> and then sarah takes me hunting! >> we'll be right back. ll be right back. 150 years of legendary financial strength and the proven experience of a leading investment firm have come together. wachovia securities is now wells fargo advisors, with financial advisors nearby and nationwide. for the advice and planning expertise you need to address today's unique challenges, we're with you. wachovia securities is now wells fargo advisors. together we'll go far.
we have solar, obviously.nd./ we have lots of oil. i think natural gas is part of the energy ix of the future. i think we have the an-do. we have the capability. we have the technology. the solutions are here. we just need to find them here. there is only so much water in the world. but demand is increasing. it takes about 35 gallons to make a cup of coffee. 700 gallons to make a t-shirt.
our team is thinking of ways to make water management smarter. nanotechnology that removes salt from water. smarter factories... ...that n on reclaimed water. smarter farms that use... ...less water to grow more food. if we can't make more water... ...we have to be smarter about the water we have. that's what i'm working on. i'm an ibmer. let's build a smarter planet. the quality of our lives depends on our connections. access to high-speed internet, at home and on the go, is no longer a luxury. it's how our children access education. it's how we find jobs, discover information, and connect with family and friends. it's the spark that drives innovation, creates investment, and builds a stronger economy.